Sorry for breaking the thread, I have no option. When I can help it I help it, now I can't. Rich rochester.rr.com> writes: > I wonder how one becomes an engineer without a degree. In the US, I think, > it would be very unusual. I know many engineers who have a degree in math > or phusics, usually a graduate degree. But I cannot think of anyone I have > met with no degree, at least in recent years. I do not know how it works in the US but in most places it is fairly easy: anybody who studied the relevant subjects sufficiently and practices them sufficiently is able to perform 'engineering' tasks (including design and more). If the relevant person has missed any requirement necessary to become a recognized engineer, such as, but not limited to, taking the final few courses or exams or paying some stupid taxes, then the relevant person is 'not an engineer' for pay and status purposes. Note that 'studying the relevant subjects' does not necessarily imply taking courses in a university. In my experience, the 'study' period is 2 to 3 times longer than that of an engineer who learns in a university, but the result is better because it is backed by solid experience and a hands-on type of approach that leads to results as opposed to crazy equipment purchasing and lab bills as is often the case with relatively inexperienced 'trained' engineers. (like 'we need that 1Gsps LeCroy scope because of our one 60MHz ARM project we will have this year' and so on and on). Of course not every technician is made to become an engineer, or to act like one. Those who neglected the theoretical and inter-disciplinary aspects are definitely not made to be engineers, and this usually shows as soon as they try to tackle some design work from scratch. Then one starts to see a modified copy of a well-known thing or a usually almost working thing that could see a lot of optimization to be manufacturable and eventually a commercial success. Still, it will be cheaper than the LeCroy scope for the small businesses which employ such people, and relatively inexperienced engineers are definitely not inter-disciplinary anyway. The 'organized' trades on the other hand, are necessary in life-threatening situations (medicine, structural engineering, energy, etc), but not necessary enough to justify a clan type of monopolistic institution with national (or often only regional!) scope and no recourse. Most places that have such 'organisms' regulating their trades end up importing everything relevant to that trade before too long (including people!), because the market forces will drive anybody who employs such people out of the market system in due time. Being 'organized' automatically means being more expensive than unorganized work, and at the same time, maintaining this by artificial scracity when competition (like immigrants and temporary labor) appears. There is a balance point where the wages that the market will bear and the amount of regulation that keeps increasing them breaks the 'back of the camel', and after that's it's a deluge of imports that will sink the 'organized' trades, whether they like it or not. Some disband and disappear, others go down noisily clinging to their brass nameplates, or become relics with have beens and symbolic meetings at chalets over beer and old stories. The alternative is the hypocritical approach where the dinosaurs coexist peacefully with the H1B coolies who do the hard work for half the money. This also exists elsewhere in the form of banana republic balkanic style countries where neither the dinosaurs nor the coolies have status, and it's a kind of free-for-all melee in which the usually corrupt state or ministry or whatever the Tontons Macoute's home base is that week always wins by definition. Ironically, this applies equally well to non-paying membership exclusive trade organizations. The simple fact of certification and of being 'secluded' from the open circuit of evolution seems to be sufficient to be called a step back, given due time, as long as the relevant organization is a singularity or a monopoly. What applies to economic monopolies seems to apply equally well to any form of monopolistic organization. I'd call it the dinosaur factor (although there is no proof that indicates that the dinosaurs were hampered by such problems, if any). I think that it is interesting to notice that one would expect a large, organized workforce, to represent a powerful electrorate that would prevent the tipping of the system towards free imports and mercantilism, yet, this does not occur in most cases. A typical example of stubborn resistance is probably Germany, where the work force is highly regulated and organized, and represents a powerful electorate, and yet the country has very serious economic problems caused by external competition. As expected, keeping one's own 'yard' regulated will not exempt one from the market forces that reign outside it, and one tends to become too expensive by over-regulation. I am not implying that over-regulation exists in Germany, but only that it is too high by comparison with its other external competitors. This greatly affects German industry which is (or was) strongly export oriented. And, Germany is just an example I give here, because I know a little about it. There are probably many others. Of course countries that have it both ways and shut their eyes win here (see United States of A. in the context of the H1B visa discussion that occurred some time ago on this list) have the best of both worlds: 'organized' trades and slaves to do the actual work (no offense meant here). I believe that it is precisely the more hypocritical issues raised by that organized vs. new/temporary/slave dichotomy that have caused the H1B/immigration scandal/conflict that rages now in the US. Here, 'slave' is to be understood as a very willing economic/labor immigrant, whether legal or not. The only thing that is very clear is the fact that the lowest common denominator that sets the pace of competition, is the country that has the lowest wages and at the same the highest production capacity. Even that would not be a problem if the market forces would operate normally everywhere, but they do not. In particular, the currency of the country with the lowest wages and highest production numbers, China, is pegged by its central government at a level that is considered inappropriate by most other countries, and they have said so much more than once. It is considered that the floating of that currency should cause the current serious imbalance in trade to eventually fix itself, and with that the wage and interest (as in, engineering students) situation too, including in engineering. Perhaps not last, for the people of that country themselves, as a more powerful Yuan would give them (the wage earners) more buying power over night, and increase their standards of living (and implicitly change the value of their exported goods in a direction that should better reflect their market value - and with this, automatically, make their manufacture (and engineering) elsewhere feasible (again) - and with that, return to the subject of this discussion, that of wages and certification in the manufacturing and engineering trades. Of course China and the Yuan is in focus here because it is the major manufacturing country with the lowest wages. If it would be another country in such a situation, then that other country would be in focus. I don't think that politics can be viewed separately from education and from wages. The 'glass ceiling' that prevents talented people from working at the best level they can achieve in their trade is a political barrier, just like the barrier between H1Bs and local certified engineers in the US is, and the same thing applies for the subtle barriers between BSc degrees and engineering degrees that open the further path to PhDs and academic achievement. The same thing can be said for the steep remuneration difference between plain assistants and professors and tenured ones and so on and so on. This discussion is, in my opinion, a lot more about politics than about engineering. The engineering side of the problem can be cleared by a thorough set of interviews and practical tests in any case, especially for someone with a lot of work experience. The glass ceiling cannot be cleared like this, and that matter is out of the examining (engineer's) hands. It it pure politics. Back to the subject, I found that the only way 'up' for people like me is working for small companies where there is no HR department (and often take a lot of c**p due to micromanagement and other's ineptitude), or becoming a 'consultant'. There one again faces the same glass ceiling others face. Certain jobs require the credibility of engineering degrees and there is no way around it. In small companies, the Peter principle is doubled by the Paul principle, which states that any self-anointed manager, engineer, technician or tradesman driven by ambition and unchecked by any superiors, will rise to the highest level he can achieve, thus guaranteeing the fact that he will have risen to the level where he is incompetent or incapable to raise any further, and where he will devote the majority of his efforts to maintain that level instead of being productive (I hink that this is the real Peter principle - I made up the Paul principle in case it isn't). In large companies the Paul principle still exists, but it is hidden in the upper levels of management where company BMWs are driven by people who probably don't deserve them, technically speaking. Lower levels are chaperoned by chaperons called managers and supervisors who keep the sheeple in the place they (believe!) they deserve. So, finally, yes, it sucks to be an overqualified technician, no matter how that position was achieved, and I believe that there should exist a set of equivalence exams or similar that should open the way for such people to higher certification(s) and to recognition (and remuneration). I also wish I was a millionaire and that I was 20 years young again (but with today's experience and brains - otherwise rather not - in despite of what women think about men, there are other things besides getting laid and getting drunk on their minds from time to time). Who doesn't want to. The world does not work that way. Peter P. --------------------------------- Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist